Pages

The Government has announced an “independent review” of the Overseas Investment Office in the wake of its 2014 approval of the sale of Onetai Station to buyers who figure in the Panama Papers.Once again the people in question were deemed to be of good character by the OIO, despite evidence to the contrary.Any such review needs to look at considerably more than just this one approval.Don’t take our word for it. To quote Martin van Beynen in the Press: “The tireless Murray Horton and Bill Rosenberg, at the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa, have been making lack of good character complaints to the OIO and its predecessor for nearly 20 years”.This link to our Website takes you to the result of a keyword search for “good character”. Pages and pages and pages of articles we’ve written about different cases over many, many years.And what is the common denominator to all our “good character” complaints – the OIO has never upheld any single one of them.The reason is quite simple – the OIO sees its function as being that of a doorman (doormat would be more accurate), a facilitator of the transnational corporations and other foreign applicants. Definitely not an overseer, regulator or investigator.This role has been delegated to the OIO by successive governments headed by both major parties throughout the 40+ years of its existence (first as the Overseas Investment Commission). It has fulfilled the role with exemplary enthusiasm: of the very few applications where Ministers have exercised their rights to make the final decision, the OIO has always argued for approval, even when the arguments for refusal are overwhelming. The most recent example of this was the Government’s 2015 refusal to allow a Chinese buyer to purchase Lochinver Station – the OIO wanted it approved.The OIO is well past its use-by date.CAFCA says the review needs to look at the following:

the OIO’s process for deciding whether an applicant is “of good character”;

exactly how the OIO substantiates an applicant’s claim that their application will be of economic benefit to New Zealand;

what OIO processes are in place for monitoring compliance with conditions imposed by the OIO and undertakings made by the applicant;

what OIO processes are in place for third-party (TP) interests, i.e. determining a TP interest, notification to TPs, receiving submissions from TPs, and keeping TPs informed, particularly after a Decision (approval) has been made;

OIO criteria for giving retrospective consent.

Let’s have a bouncer, not a doorman.

But the OIO is only part of the problem of NZ’s incredibly laissez faire foreign “investment” policy (which translates as “come on in and help yourselves”). The whole regime, not just the rubber stampers, needs an overhaul. And to be replaced by one which puts the interests of the New Zealand people first and foremost. When the Crafar Farms sale to Chinese buyers first became a major political issue several years ago, John Key said that he didn’t want to see New Zealanders “become tenants in our own country”. CAFCA very rarely agrees with anything Key says but we’re happy to quote him on that one. In the owner-tenant relationship, there is no doubt about who holds the upper hand. Ownership means political power. Foreign control means recolonisation, but by company this time, not country.

It was one of those fascinating contradictions of capitalism that the foreign-owned TV3 always took its journalistic obligations more seriously than the State-owned TVNZ.

Sadly that didn’t, and couldn’t, last (which doesn’t imply any improvement in TVNZ; simply that TV3 sank to the same level).

And the man who did the sinking was the now ex-CEO Mark Weldon. He enthusiastically applied himself to the task of converting TV3 to a sewerage farm with a most impressive output of the old proverbial.

MediaWorks, the company which owns TV3 as part of its media empire, was one of the six finalists in the 2015 Roger Award for the Worst Transnational Corporation Operating in Aotearoa/New Zealand (the winner was announced on April 30th). To quote from what we wrote when the finalists were announced, back in December 2015

“MediaWorks was another making its first appearance in the Roger Award, specifically for TV3 killing off Campbell Live. ‘The grounds for nomination are political interference, by killing off the only current affairs show anywhere on TV that actually took seriously its mission to be the voice of the people and to hold the powerful to account. And considering that TV3 replaced John Campbell with Rightwing mouthpiece Paul Henry, another ground for nomination is running an ideological crusade.

The New Zealand Herald article headline ‘Campbell’s Crusades Irked TV3 Bosses’ puts it in a nutshell. The article says that TV3 management considered that the show ‘over-emphasised charitable fundraising, and coverage of the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake, GCSB spying and child poverty’ (as well as subjects like Pike River). There was plenty of evidence that not only did Campbell Live piss off TV management but also senior figures among the directors with close connections to the Government and the Prime Minister.

“To add insult to injury Campbell Live was, at first, replaced by yet another Australian police reality show, then by a cooking show. And MediaWorks has not stopped there in its relentless drive to kill off current affairs and any kind of serious news. More recently it has announced it is shutting down its newly created 3D current affairs show (which led to a fightback from its journalists). Me-diaWorks has moved in a heavy-handed fashion to extend the dumbing down of its programmes into the one remaining area (news and current affairs) that had previously stood in sharp contrast to the rest of the dismal crap produced by either major NZ network. It falls nicely into the playbook of capital’s inherent compulsion to provide a lowest common denominator market for advertisers”.

MediaWorks didn’t win the Roger Award (the Judges Report here) . It didn’t even get into the top three. That simply shows what fierce competition there is in the transnational corporate race to the bottom.

The Roger Award includes an Accomplice Award. But that is only for New Zealand organisations or institutions, not individuals. Otherwise, Mark Weldon would have been a very strong contender.So now, the poopmeister has gone. And good riddance too, from both viewers and his long suffer-ing work force.

As a former Olympic swimmer Mark Weldon would be very familiar with the axiom “to sink or swim”. He has sunk, but it remains to be seen whether he has taken TV3 with him.